All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.

I believe that the common saying that one "cannot draw blood out of a stone" is the reverse of truth, and that not only bones, sinews, and life can be produced from them, but also, mind, reason, and the voice of conscience, which though would-be philosophers and atheists brave out in daylight, they are so horribly afraid of in the dark. [End quote]

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen 1:1).

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge” (Ps 19:1, 2).

“…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).

Wilderness1, you quoted a reverend who criticized evolution. I would be more impressed if you quoted a biologist, preferably a biologist who doesn't work for the Christian organization called the Discovery Institute.

I would also be more impressed if you didn't quote the Bible as if the Bible had any science in it.

Call it "Academic Freedom" all you want if it make you feel better about your deception. Still remains a back door why to teach the tenants of one particular faith in public schools. That's State sponsership of a religion, clearly a violation of the separation of church and State In HS we learned about some faiths. Some in a historical context others in mythology. In the event the schools teach the history of Christianity and Christians warts and all. it wouldn't be a pretty picture. Would be fantastic if Christians and the US dump their moral ambiguity and start correcting things they do that affect their fellow man adversely.

“Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever.”

Oh don’t worry, I am others are laughing, but not with you, but at you. Firstly, Darwin made as best an educated guess as anyone of his time could have made regarding to how whales & dolphins which are fully mammals came to inhabit water. At the time the evidence for how mammals became modern whales wasn’t very collectively convincing, times they have changed though. Over time more evidence is gathered, tested and based on their results and further predictions it reveals the truer picture of what transpired.

Today we know not only from genetic evidence but also from fossil evidence that the early whales like ambulocetus and rhodocetus demonstrated that cetations were actually descendants from a group of small/medium sized deer like mammals (see packicetus). Early on the paleontologists weren’t sure where to look for these fossils, but now we know where their type evolved, therefore the collection of intermediates is growing; Indohyus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackracetus, Gaviocetus, Dorudon, and Basilosaurus, and others but you get the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus

Today with the evidence we can make testable predictions on what these intermediates should look like if evolution be true. Two such predictions are how the inner ear structure must have changed over time to allow for hearing under water and the migration of the nostrils from the front of the skull, towards the middle and lastly on top as modern cetations are. If evolution is true an these mammals were the ancestors of modern whales we should be able to find fossils with ears which aren’t fully whale like and not fully mammal like, additionally we should also find the location of the nostrils migrate with succession towards their current position. Do we find such evidence? Yes, indeed we do the newest intermediates back up such predictions and reaffirm that indeed these groups of mammals are the ancestors to modern whales.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

And to follow up, Natural Selection does have some limitations for how drastic and quick such evolutionary changes can occur, if at all. IE, there are physically limitations on how large an animal can be, most of this relates to allometry, for instance, invertebrates in comparison to vertebrates can’t grow nearly as large due to the fact that they have endoskeletons, and therefore no insect could ever rival vertebrates in sheer size, this is directly why vertebrates came to dominate the land even though they weren’t the first to inhabit land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allometry

"All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.

I believe in a bear "swimming for hours with a widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." "Very like a whale!" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. “It is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits." How can I tell you? All is fish that comes to my net. [End quote]

The Darwin faith is a dead faith indeed, for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9)."

I am curious. Do you have any argument against the validity of the theory of evolution that is not an appeal to the logical fallacy of ridicule, or an appeal to the logical fallacy of question begging?

All The Articles Of The Darwin Faith By The Rev. F.O. Morris, B.A.

I believe in a bear "swimming for hours with a widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects on the water." "Very like a whale!" I think I hear you saying, but I can't help it if you do. "I see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered by natural selection more and more aquatic in their habits, with longer and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale."

Don't laugh, I beg you. It's all of a piece with my whole argument, for I have said all along that it is easy for natural selection to fit any animal for any changed habits whatever. “It is difficult to tell, and immaterial for us, whether habits generally change first and structure afterwards, or whether slight modifications of structure lead to changed habits." How can I tell you? All is fish that comes to my net. [End quote]

The Darwin faith is a dead faith indeed, for “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). “…When will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? He that formed the eye, shall he not see?” (Ps 94:8, 9).

"It's actually rather amazing the leaps of logic one can achieve when viewing the anecdotal evidence of random biological relationships while ignoring the billions of others where, glaringly, no such evidence exists."

Please explain the "leaps of logic" to which you refer. Please identify the "anecdotal" evidence to which you refer, and identify the "billions" of biological relationships that have been ignored.


"Perhaps one day, true academic freedom will allow the "religion" of spontaneous generation to go the way of alchemy.""

Spontaneous generation is a rejected biological concept. It is not a religion. Moreover, I do not understand why you reference it, as it has no direct relevance to the current topic of discussion.

It's actually rather amazing the leaps of logic one can achieve when viewing the anecdotal evidence of random biological relationships while ignoring the billions of others where, glaringly, no such evidence exists.

Perhaps one day, true academic freedom will allow the "religion" of spontaneous generation to go the way of alchemy.

Dimensio, or as another recently put it.

“Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

"Listen Einstein wanna be take your pseudo intellectual persona and redirect your attention to someone else Im done with you."

If you are unwilling to justify your assertions with evidence, then why should your claims be considered credible?